Attorney Phil Kramer of Kramer & Kaslow Takes Action, Shuts Down Unauthorized Sales
A couple of weeks ago I posted an article on the law firm of Kramer & Kaslow and the “Mass Joinder” lawsuit, in which it’s homeowners in one corner and Bank of America/Countrywide in the other. I had been contacted by a number of homeowners and was concerned about the way the lawsuit was being marketed. The article featured an interview with attorney Phil Kramer who made some very definite statements about the marketing… he said that what I was seeing was not being done by Kramer & Kaslow, but was in fact wholly unauthorized. And he said that he was going to take immediate steps to shut the unauthorized marketers down.
Well, today I was sent the link just below, which took me to the Kramer & Kaslow Website. And I’m posting it now because it does show that Mr. Kramer has taken a number of significant steps to shut down the unauthorized marketers and I thought it important that my readers see who is not permitted to offer participation in the suit to homeowners… click the link to the site and you;ll find all of the Cease and Desist letters Kramer & Kaslow sent out and a listing of Websites that you SHOULD AVOID.
I just want to be clear that I’m only posting this so that readers can see that Mr. Kramer has in fact done what he said he would do, and I personally was relieved to see it. It does not mean that I’m endorsing the suit or recommending that anyone participate in the suit, and I’m also not telling anyone not to participate.
I am still following the suit’s progress and plan to write about it again next week. So, stay tuned… because there’s more coming… same Mandelman time, same Mandelman channel…
KRAMER & KASLOW
Martin, this is really getting interesting. Kramer & Kaslow issued a consumer alert. Check out this webpage they created:
http://www.kramer-kaslow.com/news.html
Note the 23 Cease and Desist letters, and 54 banned websites.
A blog reader posted this comment in response to a blog article on K & K's consumer alert and linking K & K's website:
I worked for a company that was connected via contract with K2 and they are sending out BS letters and advising clients they are going to be included in litigation suit against BOFA, I have copies (made before I left) of what was and is being sent to the clients and sorry to say Phil your partners One to be specific are involved and has your permission. Nice try, let’s see if your background (impressive) can pull you out of this mess. I guess its true we all have a price.
And this comment:
Here is a link to the blog article and comments:
http://www.piggybankblog.com/2011/02/09/consumer-warning-dont-be-fooled/comment-page-1/#comment-4969
Brookstone Law PC is connected to K & K. Brookstone PC is listed as an approved of counsel law firm for Kramer & Kaslow:
http://www.kramer-kaslow.com/
The Law Firms listed below are the solely exclusive law firms working specifically with Kramer & Kaslow. All others are not affiliated. In order to protect your rights and security in this case all matters pursuant to Kramer & Kaslow are only authorized through the law firms below:
Matt Davis Law Firm
Brookstone Law, PC
Mass Litigation Alliance,pc
There is also this document that is posted on K & K's authorized intake partner, Hartford Dunn, website. (The website is brand new)
hhttp://hartforddunn.com/pdfs/Hartford_Dunn.pdf
If you scroll down to the bottom of the document, you will see these words:
The title of the document is: "Mortgage Litigation Affiliate Practice". Read it.
Brookstone Law PC filed a case in Orange County (Wright v B of A):
http://www.piggybankblog.com/2011/02/15/wright-vs-bank-of-america-press-release/
Please note that the same blogger who wrote the K & K consumer alert story is also the Plaintiff in the case, and again, Brookstone Law filed the case.
The case is Wright et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., case no.30-2011-00449059-CU-MT-CXC filed in Orange County Superior Court and was filed February 9, 2011.
http://www.johnwrightvsbofa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Complaint-Conformed1.pdf
This case is not to be confused with Wright v B of A:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/11/prweb4755704.htm
http://westorlandonews.com/2010/04/23/boa-continues-to-screw-home-owners-yet-another-law-suit-filed/
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/11/prweb4755704.htm
John Wright was also the plaintiff in this case and was represented by United Law Group.
Like I said, this is getting interesting although the bouncing ball is hard to follow.
Excellent breakdown, DTM.
Whatever KK claims they are doing now, does not explain the past pattern of behavior.
Still would like to know how the "ambassadors" were compensated when they sent all funds to KK. Surely "ambassadors" are not the benevolent saints working to rid the earth of the scourge of bankers. They must have been compensated for their efforts ... please explain, Martin.
How are we consumers to believe that this is nothing more than a "money grab" to fund the lawyers pockets?
Achtung, the "ambassadors" appear to have been thrown under the bus.
There is a whole other can of worms with Brookstone Law. You remember United Law Group right? Brookstone took over files for United Law Group. The COO of ULG, Damian Kutzner, had a multitude of issues with the FCC and the CA DOC. Anyway, the founder of ULG was disbarred, there was a bankruptcy, and the Trustee sued Brookstone and made allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Brookstone Law. Furthermore, the prior COO of ULG, Damien Kutzner, is now an employee of Brookstone.
And Brookstone is connected to K & K.
There is a whole other can of worms with Brookstone Law. You remember United Law Group right? Brookstone took over files for United Law Group. The COO of ULG, Damian Kutzner, had a multitude of issues with the FCC and the CA DOC. Anyway, the founder of ULG was disbarred, there was a bankruptcy, and the Trustee sued Brookstone and made allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Brookstone Law. Furthermore, the prior COO of ULG, Damien Kutzner, is now an employee of Brookstone.
And Brookstone is connected to K & K.
You are right. The rumored connections are now showing their ugly heads.
Unfortunately, Martin Is acting like a "stated income" Loan officer, and only believing the narrative. Forgetting that motives are driving these attorneys. Forgetting that, BEHIND all the mess, there are consumers spending their money to join this lawsuit.
In Martins defense, I sent him the link to the companies website with the Cease and Desist letters and banned websites. At the time that I sent him the link, I was not aware of the other stuff or the comments on another blog from a prior employee.
You'll notice that Martin didn't put the article in the news feed or featured articles. It is tucked away under loan modification news.
As this matter escalates, I'm sure more information will float to the surface.
I am not blaming Martin. I don't believe he is holding anything back, but he is promoting a concept for which all the facts are not known. Whether or not he is endorsing this (which he states he is not), he is still publicizing a concept for which little is known about ALL the players.
This is a dangerous game that could end up being an exercise in false hope. A costly one at that.
If no one steps up to vet these types of lawyer consortiums, then we all have failed. The homeowners are poorer, and still one step behind in the foreclosure process.
If, in fact, this organization is just a recreation of the same groups that profited off the misery of others, people will be severely impacted.
Achtung, I couldn't agree with you more. Add to that, the law firms could end up undermining the efforts of bona fide attorneys that truly do slave and labor to help borrowers. My main concern is that hard work and due diligence goes into every case. Otherwise, the actions of the law firms could set negative precedents that harm the cases of other diligent attorneys.
Law firms should not engage in high pressure sales tactics or mass affiliate marketing. It literally makes me sick to my stomach to hear reports from homeowners and find employment ads for intake salespeople. Law firms need to rethink being the vehicle of get rick schemes for industry rejects. Mind you, I have no qualms with law firms employing bona fide industry experts to assist in the screening process so long as it doesn't result in needless steering of clients that lawsuits won't help.
I've beaten Martin over the repeatedly in the past, and will give him credit for keeping this off his main feed. However, I hope that Martin will follow up with a consumer alert and provide his readers with common-sense guidance.
It does bother me how this situation is being handled. I find it odd that Kramer & Kaslow would simply release this to a blogger who is the plaintiff on the case filed by Brookstone and prior client of United Law Group instead of legitimate news sources. I also don't understand why the law firm did not get law enforcement involved. If this happened to either one of us, you know exactly how it would have been handled.
More on United Law Group and Vito Torchia of Brookstone Law PC. Check out this lawsuit:
http://www.lakeshorelaw.org/~/media/Firm%20Galleries/Organizations/1/7/9/5/1795782/complaint%20current%20ULG.ashx
Martin, you really need to look into the Brookstone and Kramer & Kaslow connection.
Wait, it gets even better. On K & K's website (the most recent one with the consumer alert), there is a link to Mass Litigation Alliance as an approved Of Counsel firm and as the K & K approved National Intake partner. There is also a link to the Mass Litigation Alliance website on K & K's site:
http://www.masslitalliance.com/
Here is a link to the updated K & K site:
http://www.kramer-kaslow.com/index.html
Now here is a recent blog story from John Wright (the plaintiff in the Wright v B of A case that was filed by Brookstone Law) who broke the story of unauthorized individuals and companies using the K & K name and provided a link to K & K's updated website: (It also appears that John Wright wrote some press releases for K & K that also appear to have been sponsored by Brookstone Law).
http://www.piggybankblog.com/2003/09/09/masslitalliance-com/
According to John Wright, Matthew Kanani Davis and Mass Litigation Alliance are not approved by K & K (despite K & K's website claiming MLA and Mr. Davis are approved).
Nonetheless, it appears that Mr. Davis is the fall guy for the K2 law debacle.
It is important to note that K & K removed reference to Hartford Dunn that had previously been listed on K & K's new website as an approved National Intake Partner. If you recall, the Hartford Dunn site featured a document titled Mass Litigation Affiliate Practice which was nothing more than an affiliate marketing piece. Here is the document in question that is posted on the Hartford Dunn site:
http://www.hartforddunn.com/pdfs/Hartford_Dunn.pdf
Classic.
As you all know Kramer sent a cease and desist letter to all of the sites that were as you call them "ambassadors".
I have never heard that term but I believe what happened was that there were unauthorized sites, sites that were not posting accurate information, and other things that led to this.
Kramer took the appropriate action in shutting down these sites. He has eliminated the unauthorized sites and he also has forced the legitimate ones into a website that cannot be modified by anyone but his people.
That would be the Mass Litigation Alliance.
http://www.mass-litigation.com/
All firms must now operate under this strict template and do not have any control over the content of the site. The site is hosted by the Mass Litigation Alliance.
Matthew Davis is a founding member of the Mass Litigation Alliance. Matthew Davis was never a member of the Brookstone group or any organization that has done anything wrong. I have not read a single bad thing about him personally.
Finally,
The Kramer cases, which are Mass Joinder, are very legitimate and help out any homeowner who has a legitimate case against their lender. Kramer is a brilliant attorney and the cases are on the site for you to read. Without the Mass Joinder ability people would have to hire their own attorney and spend upwards of $50,000 to do what Kramer is doing for a fraction of that amount.
There are hundreds of thousands (at least, and if you count MERS violations as many as 62 million) people who want to know about these lawsuits and be included in them. That is why the Mass-Litigation Alliance was formed - there is no human way anyone can take that many calls without help.
Lastly, Kramer is taking these cases on contingency - he is going to spend years prosecuting these cases and will be doing so at his own risk. I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate with his credentials willing to do this.
Icantseeyou, I can see that you guys don't give up. If nothing else, I must admire your tenacity.
First off, the firms are collecting upfront fees in addition to the contingency fees. This has already been established, documented, and forwarded to regulators.
In regard to the rest of your claims, please carefully read my following response to another poster regarding this issue on another thread on the Implode-O-Meter forum: (here is a link to the discussion thread):
http://forum.ml-implode.com/viewtopic.php?t=139164&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
"Mr_e_man, I am going to assume that you are actual client of Kramer & Kaslow and not a "plant" because a representative of the company or paid poster would never say things that are in direct conflict with other information that has already been fed to the public.
First off, Kramer & Kaslow seem very fond of switching up websites and editing and deleting information. The following websites have been claimed to be official websites of K & K:
www.kramer-kaslow.com
(confirmed by CA Bar and given to Martin Andelman by Phil Kramer as well as John Wright at Piggy Bank Blog)
www.kramerkaslowpc.com
(per John Wright at Piggy Bank Blog)
As to the www.kramer-kaslow.com site, I have copies of the website that listed Brookstone Law, Mass Litigation Alliance, and Matt Davis as approved Of Counsel firms. I also have copies of their website that state that Hartford Dunn and Mass Litigation Alliance were approved National Intake partners. The website has been revised a few times, but I did retain evidence.
In regard to Matthew Kanani Davis and Mass Litigation Alliance, I call your attention to an article written by John Wright of Piggy Bank Blog claiming that he has verified that Matthew Davis and Mass Litigation Alliance are not approved by Kramer & Kaslow. Here is a link to the article:
http://www.piggybankblog.com/2003/09/09/masslitalliance-com/
(You'll note in the article that John Wright now claims the correct web address for K & K is www.kramerkaslowpc.com. He also provided a link to the page that shows the website www.masslitalliance.com as banned unauthorized website. I got a real kick out of this yesterday, because the website was showing as banned on the warning page, but was still linked on the front page as an approved Of Counsel firm. At last check, it is still linked on the www.kramer-kaslow.com site (the same site Phil Kramer gave Martin Andelman as the official company website and the same site shown by the CA Bar).
You can check out some of the documents I posted on the Loansafe.org website showing what was posted on their website (including the page showing Hartford Dunn as an approved National Intake partner).
You can also find copies of emails that Moe Bedard posted on the discussion thread evidencing that K & K tried to recruit him to promote the law firm. Here is a link to the discussion:
http://www.loansafe.org/forum/stop-foreclosure-tell-us-your-story/36967-k2-law-firm-mass-joinder-lawsuit-vs-bofa-3.html#post320240
Now, when I see individuals and companies acting in a manner that is dishonest, it raises an eyebrow. When I see companies violating state laws and CA Bar ethics it raises both eyebrows.
And when I repeatedly stumble upon evidence that consumers have been lied, I email everything I have compiled to regulators in addition to warning the public.
What I recommend to you right now is to contact the California Bar Association and file a formal complaint. While you are on the phone with the California Bar Association, be sure and ask them about the Client Security Fund, and be prepared to file a claim.
After you have contacted the Bar, contact the California Attorney General and file a complaint there as well. After that, you might also want to file a complaint with the BBB as an additional measure.
If you are really good and mad, talk to an attorney."
If Kramer & Kaslow and Mitchell Stein are being victimized as many individuals and some blogs claim, it is their responsibility to do what is necessary to shut down the scam and clear their name. Please note that the game of musical chairs with websites and information being posted and deleted (see above) as well as individuals (such as John Wright and yourself) posting information on blogs and websites is only making them look worse.
I responded here as you suggested.
http://forum.ml-implode.com/viewtopic.php?p=326264#326264
You seem to have a mis-understanding of the law on up front filing fees in California. They apply to loan modification's not law suits.
There is no rule against charging a legal client a filing fee.
As far as John Wright honestly I don't what what he has to do with anything.
http://forum.ml-implode.com/viewtopic.php?p=326264#326264
You seem to have a mis-understanding of the law on up front filing fees in California. They apply to loan modification's not law suits.
There is no rule against charging a legal client a filing fee.
As far as John Wright honestly I don't what what he has to do with anything.
Oh, is that what you scamsters are calling it now, FILING FEES? ROFLMAO.
How about this? Instead of posting BS on every forum I posted information on, that we just do a conference call to the CA Bar and CA AG and see how they feel about the firm's $4k plus filing fees? Nice try, but I've already sent the info to regulatorsl
My consumer warning still stands. Mandelman, where are you??? Are you getting any of this?
Well since you brought it up I looked into John Wright.
His Youtube account for the video's he posts is wright4ULG.
As in United Law Group, which was investigated, shut down, got multiple attorneys disbarred, etc... Also their BBB rating is an F. I also read that ULG has a relationship with Brookstone.
Thanks for bringing him to my attention. Now we know who the talking head for Brookstone is.
How much are you being paid to post here?
Nice deflection. We already know who
Wright and ULG and Brookstone are.
This mass joinder suit seems to be a fraud.
It is the result of the modification Scamsters just wanting to bilk the public of more money, without doing a thing.
Kaslow and Kramer are listed by the Better Business Bureau (BBB) as having a grade of F (for failure) because they did not do what they promised, and refused to honor refund agreements to clients. (don't believe me, talk to the BBB.)
As to the shills that are promoting the Mass Joinder, if they are not a California Supreme Court authorized Lawyer referral service, They ARE breaking the law. One cannot herd clients in the state of California. Nor can an attorney ACCEPT clients known to be herded. (Rule 1-320 in case you are interested in looking it up)
As to the upfront fees. Unless the fees are called "retainer" upfront, and listed as non refundable, they must by California Law be segregated into separate accounts and accounted for.
(and no, it does not cost 5 grand to be added (joinder) to a mass joinder suit.
AS to Mass litigation Alliance. They are run by an attorney (Davis). What does Davis get out of the arrangement? What is disclosed? How is Davis compensated?
Why was MLA and Davis said to not be associated with K&K and now they are the only "authorized" intake company?
I am amazed the further I look on the internet the more bad stuff I find about your leader John Wright...
Check out post #67 on http://www.loansafe.org/forum/stop-foreclosure-tell-us-your-story/36967-k2-law-firm-mass-joinder-lawsuit-vs-bofa-3.html#post320240
According to the founder of the website "I am not sure about you John Wright because you were the same dude saying the American Law Center was not a scam last year and they were subsequently RAIDED BY THE FBI. Even after that happened, you were commenting on my blogs, actually spamming them, and saying they were the best and then your would try and recruit people over to your blogs. So, I'd safely say that over the last 2 years, I have deleted approximately 100 of your comments for the very same reason.
The reason brother, to protect the people and homeowners like I have been doing for almost 4 years now.
So, with that said, you are banned from LoanSafe and emails, links and BS removed in order to protect the public from whatever it is your are doing with your piggybank blog and lawsuits."
I would urge you all to read that post which has links to Mr. Wright and pretty much destroys the "piggybank" blog.
More deflection. I wonder why.
You seem to be more enthralled with mr wright than anything else.
However, this thread is about Kaslow and Kramer and the capacity of this type of scam, to bilk homeowners out of their hard earned cash.
This is about the significant amount of people who have complained about Paying K&K and not receiving any help whatsoever. This is about K& K having a record with the BBB of not responding to customer complaints.
If you wish to discuss K& K, please do. We would all be interested in the additions you may have as to why ambassadors were recruiting clients in direct violation of California Law.
Please tell us how a 5000 dollar fee is a "filing fee".
Please give people any hope whatsoever that this is not another fraud scheme.
Bilk people out of cash?
Have you looked at the lawsuits that are readily available on the website? Do you think they are not real? $4000 to get into a major lawsuit like this is pennies. People are paying loan mod companies $2200 and they get nothing.
Read the transcripts on the cases - read the complaints - call the court if you don't believe they are real.
Honestly I don't know what your problem is.
Kramer is for real and so are the lawsuits.
Now you also seem to have a beef with affiliates. In fact that seems to be the only thing you keep bringing up that has anything worth talking about. Yes, there were rogue affiliates out there - as you saw Kramer took immediate action to eliminate them. Now there is a controlled website and a fixed price of $4000.
From what I've read the Brookstone group is charging $875 just to see if you have a case and then $5000 to get into it. Kramer doesn't charge anything to "check" to see if you have a case - if you don't he doesn't let you in the case.
The money you pay up front goes towards running the case. Do you think it's free for him to prosecute a mass joinder case? If he is taking pure contingency and using the funds to run the case he's taking a big risk himself. Do you think attorneys work for free?
By the way do you understand the basic rules and regulations behind a mass joinder case or a class action? I don't think you do. You are trying to be an attorney which you are not. Don't even go there when citing rules and regulations because you don't have the basic education to even begin to understand what you are talking about.
The fact is that YOU are hurting people by putting doubt in their minds on a completely legitimate case which in many cases is the last chance for people to recover damages when the banks steal their homes.
One last point you keep bringing up is the BBB. Anyone who runs a business and has had dealings with the BBB knows they have become a corrupt organization. Take a look at other companies that go against the banks - all get F's.
Why don't you do some reading..
http://thedebtdog.com/debt-industry/terror-group-gets-a-rating-from-better-business-bureau/
http://thedebtdog.com/debt-industry/what-you-should-know-about-the-bbb/
Why don't you spend your time investigating how the banks are stealing peoples homes? Why are you so focused on so little?
I am soooo sorry I am costing you money by questioning whether the suit is FRAUD. So sorry, that I am protecting consumers from predators.
I have read the lawsuits. Just as I have read all the complaints on Kramer And Kaslow. By doing both, I accomplish something called BEING OBJECTIVE.
I don't have to call the court house to see if the Case was filed. FACT is, any case that is filed will appear on the court docket. Merely filing says nothing. FRAUD filings occur every day.
Why don't you interrupt your CASH GRAB, and become a little bit objective. How about explaining WHY people were signing up with So Called ambassadors, and sending checks to Kaslow and Kramer, and the ambassador getting Kickbacks? If the suit was so legitimate, WHY have to go through this whole system of recruiting?
There is NO SUCH CONCEPT as rogue affiliates. They were funneling the money to the ATTORNEYS, and they were getting kickbacks.
THE proof is out there. THERE are clients that will testify that it happened.
Now you are saying the money is for "running" the case? Fine, show me the individual accounts you placed client money into for "running".
California state Law would be that if the money paid upfront was for "running" the case, expenses would have to be accrued and must be explained to the client.
As far as attorneys working for free --- I have no problem with attorneys getting paid. I have a problem with them overcollecting and underperforming.
What is happening is that customers are being BILKED and there is a blind eye to it, while the fleecing continues and no-one stands up to protect the consumer. That will be changing very soon.
Notice that I am SPECIFICALLY talking about Kramer and Kaslow. I am referring to K&K's negative ratings.
The article that starts this thread is about K&K. I am not going after Brookstone or any other company or person. Although you keep on trying to bring them into the conversation.
You can try to deflect everything to Brookstone. I don't care. i have enough fun with K2 and their magical mystery tour of websites.
Icantseeyou, if what the affiliates ("ambassadors" and "intake specialists") was kosher, why did Kramer & Kaslow use the follow verbiage in all of the Cease and Desist letters to the affiliates?:
entitled to practice law when in fact such person is not an active member of the State Bar. See Birbower, Montalbano, Candon & Frank, P.C. v. Sup. Ct., 17 Cal. 4th 119, 128
(1998); Bus. & Prof. § 6126(a).
The penalties and remedies for the unauthorized practice of law include (a) being
convicted of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000
or both; (b) actual damages suffered by your prospective clients; (c) restitution of
amounts paid; (d) reasonable attorneys fees and costs expended to rectify errors made in the unlawful practice of law; (e) prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date of loss to the date of judgment; and (f) rescission of sales made in connection with a
violation of law. Bus. & Prof. § 6126.5(a)(1)-(6).
2. Unlawful Solicitation: Unlawful solicitations include using firm names, trade names,
fictitious names or other professional designations falsely stating or implying that you
have a relationship with another lawyer or law firm. CRPC § 1-400(E).
Additionally, the State Bar Act makes it unlawful for any person to act as a runner or
capper for an attorney or to solicit any business for an attorney in any public place or
upon private property. Bus. & Prof. § 6152(a)(1). The term “runner or capper” refers to
anyone acting for consideration as an agent of an attorney or law firm in the solicitation
or procurement of business for the attorney or firm. Bus. & Prof. § 6151(a). It is a
misdemeanor for any person to act as a “runner or capper” or to solicit business for an
attorney. A second or subsequent offense could be a felony. Bus. & Prof. § 6153.
Note, we aren't concerned about the actions of a few rouge affiliates. The kramer-Kaslow.com site shows 24 Cease & Desist letters, and 54 banned websites. The new kramerkaslowpc.com site shows 75 Cease & Desist letters, and 60 banned websites. This is a pandemic level of fraud.
People are started to post things that indicate that Phil Kramer was aware of what was going on. There a only a few posts here and there, but as the situation evolves, I would not be surprised to see more.
While you are checking out posts on the Loansafe discussion thread, be sure to check out post # 80:
http://www.loansafe.org/forum/stop-foreclosure-tell-us-your-story/36967-k2-law-firm-mass-joinder-lawsuit-vs-bofa-4.html
__________________________________________________ ___
to moe@loansafe.org
date Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:17 PM
subject kramer kaslow / mass lit alliance
mailed-by bounce.secureserver.net
signed-by gmail.com
Hi Moe,
I have been following your blog. I am blown away by the info.
I am working on the inside, but obviously I have some serious doubts. PLEASE do not mention my name or email address, but I can probably fill in a lot of the gaps you guys are trying to figure out. Just as a disclaimer, I got into this to help people that have been screwed by their lender, not to make a quick buck. Obviously I did not know that what they were doing was in a serious gray area to say the least. If it weren't for a customer pointing out your blog and others like it, I would not have known. I work at one of several offices in Orange County, CA, but I do not want to say which one for obvious reasons.
This is set up more like a pyramid scheme than you know.
Kramer has a few different channels to accept new clients, but can only speak about Mass Lit Alliance. This is a phony baloney company that was thrown together real quick because people like yourself were getting close to the truth. This is run by a few individuals with sketchy pasts, including none other than Chris Fox (company Green Credit raided a couple yrs ago) and Gary DiGiralomo (went to prison several yrs ago, been sued numerous times). Here is a basic breakdown:
Gary has salespeople that recruit new offices to sell the lawsuit. These are typically loan mod companies that are struggling and are looking for a new platform. (ours was Niket)
The "affiliate office" sends out marketing, typically using autodialers or predictive dialers. The potential litigant speaks to an "intake specialist" who explains the lawsuit as well as the fees
"intake specialist" generates Kramer retainer and sends to client
"intake specialist" uploads retainer into system, along with payment info (ACH debit)
a commission is then paid to the intake person, usually around $800 or so
wholesale cost to affiliate branch = $2k on avg, so they pocket the difference
the client is then transfered to a 3rd party company called "Attorney Processing Center", also in Irvine
APC gets Kramer to sign retainer, Kramer pays them a flat "processing" fee for each client, which = anything over $1k
APC keeps a portion to process the file, around $500. Another $500 is paid to International Workflow, which is Gary's company. They pay the salespeople.
The difference of the money is paid back to the affiliate branch
So, on a $5k retainer:
Kramer = $1k
APC = $500
International Workflow = $500 (salespeople paid out of that)
Intake specialist = $800
Branch = $2200
The client is contacted first by APC, then later by one of the attorneys, but that can take months.
The vast majority of the people who are selling this to clients have no idea that this is wrong. Why? Because we are not attorneys!
Had a client not brought this to my attention this week, I never would have knows. When I asked our manager how we are able to split fees with the attorney, he gave me a complicated answer about how Kramer isn't paying us, he is paying APC for the processing of the files, and they pay us a commission for referring clients to them. I am honestly confused whether this is legal or not, but it definitely sounds like it is in a serious gray area to say the least. Nobody wants to break the law or do wrong by their clients, but it seems like there are some slick people at the top who may have different motives for getting involved with this.
Please keep me anonymous, but I'm happy to share any information I can. If what we are doing is not legal, I really need to know that and I'm all for shedding some light on it. 90% of the people selling this are well intentioned and have no interest in screwing homeowners any more than they've already been screwed! ~sorry for the long email
Answer my questions and I'll go ahead and answer yours. You failed to address the BBB, you failed the address how mass joinders and class actions work, you failed to address helping people who have lost their homes, you failed to address why you aren't going after loan mod firms which are charging $2200 to do nothing.
Your main beef seems to be with the affiliates of the Mass Joinder Alliance - but if the affiliates are getting people into a case they never would have heard of aren't they doing good?
You don't understand the law - at all. And you fail any test of logic I can throw at you.
Your main beef seems to be with the affiliates of the Mass Joinder Alliance - but if the affiliates are getting people into a case they never would have heard of aren't they doing good?
You don't understand the law - at all. And you fail any test of logic I can throw at you.
What you don't understand is that people are on to the fraud scam.
What you don't understand is that people are tired of being taken advantage of.
What you don't understand is that your fraud is being documented and forwarded. (I personally am sending it to some really good AG's)
What you don't understand is that it is not legal to have these ambassadors, under current California Law.
What you don't understand is that the BBB has an FFFFFFFFF rating on Kramer and Kaslow. WHY? They SCREWED people.
Which makes your last sentence a freaking joke. WE ARE GOING AFTER THE LOAN MOD SCAM PEOPLE WHO DID NOTHING FOR THE MONEY THEY TOOK.
THAT WOULD BE YOUR MONKEY ASS, I AM REFERRING TOO
You can't answer any of my questions. You keep re-stating your assumptions but never back them up with anything.
Well I am sending your posts to a really good "toilet". I'm sure it will flush them quite nicely.
Well I am sending your posts to a really good "toilet". I'm sure it will flush them quite nicely.
Nice rebuttal. I really hope that you rip-off thousands of people with your scam. You will need the money. Obviously you have no intellectual skills in any other area that does not include stealing the hard earned money of people put in an impossible situation by the banking industry.
I apologize, I didn't actually think you were serious. But here goes:
If the rating was an A or even a B, I could see your point. There are many companies with A ratings that I don't believe deserve it. There are also companies with A ratings that aren't even members. But in the case of Kramer & Kaslow, their F rating was earned through a large volume of complaints. Did you even bother reviewing any of the complaints that are listed on the BBB website?
I once had to deal with the BBB on a borrower complaint, and although I was already dealing with the borrower's issue, I also dealt closely with the BBB to resolve the complaint. I don't like complaints or unhappy customers, and the BBB was very helpful in resolving the situation with the customer. One or two satisfactorily resolved complaints is one thing, a couple a dozen serious unsolved complaints is another. But you should know this, and the links you provided were to obfuscate the real issue with is that the BBB has given Kramer & Kaslow a well-earned F.
Running and capping and splitting fees with non-attorneys are not allowed with class actions or mass joinders any more than with regular cases. This is but another diversion tactic by you to confuse the public. Nice try.
You fail to recognize the many hours and tireless work that I have spent trying to shut down illegal loan modification companies. Google Krista Railey and Green Credit Solutions in case you need a clue. Also, check out this warning that was written by Karl Denninger of the Market Ticker that was written, in part, because of all the noise I was making regarding scams:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=179463
My main beef is that borrowers are being bilked out of money. No matter how you slice it, laws are being broken, ethics are being discarded, and scammers are cashing in.
When you tell me I know nothing about the law, I'm reminded of the same tactics used by Green Credit after I cited a number of violations after visiting their office. I am not an attorney, but I am a DRE broker and not being an attorney will not prevent me from being cited for violations or shield me from liability to clients for negligence. This is why I paid very close attention in business and real estate law classes, research issues, and seek opinion from attorneys and other resources. When in doubt, I do not hesitate to contact the CA Bar or DRE.
I've also been contacted by investigators by the CA DRE, CA BAR, CA DOJ, SEC, and IRS due to information I have posted and documentation I gathered doing research.
Like I said before, I'm more than happy to do a conference call with you to the CA Bar on this issue. But in the meantime, in between time, every thing I have is going out to the CA Bar, CA DRE, and CA DOJ. They can sort through the bodies.
At least you responded however wrong you may be.
1) The BBB gives everyone an F who goes after the banks no matter who they may be. Further there are no recent complaints against Kramer because he stopped doing loan mods because they banks are turning down 94% of them through fraud. So instead he filed a lawsuit against them - other firms are scamming people for loan mod money and Kramer has decided to do something about it - to me that makes him a hero.
2) The lawsuits are completely legitimate and if you read the latest status hearing on the BOA case the judge discusses how powerful our case it. It's been 2 years and if it were a scam the judge would have dismissed it instead of warning BOA they could lose billions.
3) I am an attorney so I won't get into splitting fee's. I don't agree with your position.
4) I talk to people every day who have been taken by loan mod companies because the banks are giving them the run-around and stealing their homes. I am going to write an article about it next week. I think the loan modification issue and the issue with the banks stealing homes dwarf's whatever issues you have with Kramer and how he runs his business. I know his cases are real and I know the people going into them have a good chance at getting far more than they put into the case. I have done far more research into this than you have.
So instead of pounding the one Attorney who is trying help homeowners why don't you attack targets like the loan mod shops and the banks.
Let me give you an example of what the banks are doing regularly. They put someone into the trial HAMP program (3 months) and tell them at the end they will get a permanent modification. The banks then lose documents on purpose and keep demanding new information to extend that 3 months to as long as 1 1/2 years. What they don't tell the customer is that trial period payments don't go towards their mortgage. Then after all that time they get denied - either because the banks say the documents were not there or because they don't qualify - this happens 90% of the time. Once they are denied they are told to come up with all the back payments or they will be foreclosed on. In many cases it's $20,000 and up. In nearly every case the homeowner loses the home.
Now what are the people supposed to do? Some go and pay a loan mod firm because they don't know anywhere else to go - well that's worthless because the loan mod firm can't do anything.
What they can do is get into a mass joinder case where there is a good chance they will recover their losses and perhaps even get the home back.
What you are doing by attacking the people who do the mass joinders is attacking those very people who have been hurt by the banks and loan mod shops.
I will be joining the case in March.
-Listen to the February 26,2011 radio interview with Mathew K Davis of Mass Litigation Alliance pc, and Philip A. Kramer of Kramer & Kaslow, discussing their collaborative effort of Mass Joinder Litigation”. Taking the fight to the Banks!
www.versusthebank.com
Icantseeyou,
I can see your point, until that is, you ask of the reader to take the word of K&K, who have a legacy of not performing. That legacy is written by the volume of consumers they have left hanging, with no refund. When one does not do the job, they should not be paid.
The argument may indeed be valid. We are not discussing that. We are discussing the past performance of K&K. We are discussing their apparent attempts to cash out on the misery of clients. Their use of questionable herding companies.
We all know companies that have taken advantage of people. K&K has not shown itself to be any different than the Loan mod scammers. I have worked with the BBB and I know how seriously they take their ratings system.
Do you have an alternative method of weighing a companies performance other than through looking at their past complaints? Seriously?
In most businesses a single bad complaint would be enough to have management look at their business practices. A laundry list of complaints would shut them down. But your learned opinion would suggest that everyone should send more money their way? That is your solution?
The complaint against BOA may be interesting. We will find out if it is successful in 2012 or so. Maybe it will be a winner, maybe it won't. Maybe K&K will turn consumers tragedies into one big comedy.
We know well what the banks are doing. We are in the business of helping consumers. We know their tricks, and have some of our own. This, in no way, makes what K&K is doing more or less legitimate. I can parade just as many examples of banks behaving badly as you can. It still does not make K&K legitimate.
What makes a company legitimate, is doing what you say your going to do and doing it well. Not taking advantage of people when they are vulnerable makes a company legitimate. Not playing games with "ambassador" programs makes a company legitimate.
K&K has not yet lived up to those standards.
1) The BBB gives everyone an F who goes after the banks no matter who they may be. Further there are no recent complaints against Kramer because he stopped doing loan mods because they banks are turning down 94% of them through fraud. So instead he filed a lawsuit against them - other firms are scamming people for loan mod money and Kramer has decided to do something about it - to me that makes him a hero.
Is that why Brookstone Law has an A rating, and Kramer & Kaslow has an A rating with the San Diego BBB? The BBB starts companies out with an A rating, and that rating changes based on customer complaints and ratings, as well as how the company handles complaints. I saw negative ratings on BBB's website this month as well as other complaints on various forums.
I do not dispute that there is an actual case. I have found the filing, and will be doing additional research to just how many plaintiffs have been added to the case. Whether an actual case exists has not been a bone of contention.
I have common sense, and I don't agree with your position based on the documentation that I have reviewed. Since you are an attorney, I would expect your to be able to write a sufficient analysis to enlighten us. I know (or at least I hope) that you don't argue cases based solely on the fact that you are attorney.
I talk to people every day, too, and have gone above and beyond on bringing mod scams to regulator's attention- including law firms and so-called attorney backed firmed. I've also helped people talk to their lender and prepare loss mitigation requests (for free). Had a friend over tonight and was helping him write letters, scan, fax, etc. He was nice enough to bring me a crate of oranges, so I can't say I didn't receive some compensation here.
I am targeting many of the individuals and companies that have previously been mod shops or worked for mod shops. If there weren't 70 websites that are illegally marketing the Mass Joinder (as per Mr. Kramer's websites), I wouldn't have to spend this much time researching the issue.
You are really preaching to the choir on this. You also forgot that half the time the banks can't even calculate the income or housing expense correctly or follow HAMP rules on HAMP mods.
Borrowers can work through bona fide non-profits, industry professionals that donate time, complete a short sale, file bankruptcy, lien strip unsecured seconds, file a lawsuit, try to work out a short pay, request another trial, etc. But dealing with non-attorneys and paying large sums upfront so the same guys that participated in mod scams is not something I would recommend. Let's just say someone goes through one of those companies, pay fees, and doesn't get added to the suit. What now?
At least now we know what you are. It's not very impressive given that:
1) You didn't disclose your interest upfront.
2) You post anonymously and provide no information to verify that you are a member of the part.
3) You seem to have no problem with the marketing or fee splitting arrangements whereas most attorneys I know wrinkle their noses in distaste.
I redirect you to the pyramid type scheme that one insider claims is occurring including the involvement of Chris Fox who was at the top of the food chain at GCS.
Mr. Kramer has access to Martin Andelman and could easily reach Moe Bedard at Loansafe.org to has all this out. Changing websites and deleting information (that is in the public domain) is not helping.
Remember, Mass Litigation Alliance was just recently formed, and was posted on his main website as approved while a Cease & Desist letter and listing as a banned website was pasted on his warning page.
I fully appreciate the concern of Kramer Kaslows history with modification and that they are still affiliating with many of the individuals who were involved in these fiasco's. But the point has to be made that litigation is currently the most viable option in pursuing remedy from housing trouble. The mod programs have no teeth via regulation or financial incentive for the servicers or the banks. The amount of fraud that has gone on is staggering and even those who were involved in varying levels or those who have dedicated hundreds of hours educating themselves on the process are still amazed at the level of deception that went on and is still going on. A homeowner without educated and dedicated counsel will not have their interests represented in any proceeding whether attempted mod or foreclosure prevention. There are unfortunately cost prohibitive factors that can determine currently who can and can't fight for a good faith negotiation with the bank while exercising some leverage on the their behalf. Retainer fees for these suits from experienced attorneys with a success rate is usually 5 figures and they contain a contingency based on savings as well as an additional contingency based on damages if awarded. The class or mass action is a relatively new approach to this issue and is still questionable as real estate and recording laws are generally handled on a state level so a case filed and adjudicated entirely within a single state could have some inherent issues. The advantage of course is that the retainer costs have been mitigated by the ability to streamline clients using virtually the same arguments and getting them into a position where they may have some leverage to bring the bank to the table in a negotiation of principal as well as terms that could allow the homeowner a realistic opportunity to retain possession of their property. The mass effort allows those who cannot afford a much higher cost to still access a similar procedure. While I do have questions about the individuals in this process as has been outlined clearly the process itself has merit. As far as capping and referral fees that is an issue that seems open to some subjectivity depending on the state in which the suit is filed. So do homeowners take a leap knowing the process affords them some action and is cost effective for them knowing that the histories of some of the individuals involved is suspect? I don't know. But I would flatly contest that despite the very opinionated discourse on this forum nobody really knows what is and what isnt with this case whether good or bad but it is up to the homeowner to weigh the risks against the associated benefits and make that decision for themselves. It's our job to make sure that they have all the information they need to choose.
Excellent response. I agree in principle for the need to hold the banks accountable.
With that though, I still cannot get past the unscrupulous way in which K&K has handled past business.
If K&K had taken the position to include all disgruntled past clients (who still have not had their money refunded) in the mass joinder suit, then I would consider that as an attempt to right wrongs committed on their behalf.
If K&K would have said they had made a mistake on their "ambassador" program, and fessed up that they did in fact offer to "ambassadors" kick backs, it would be different story. (they won't do this, because it would be an admission of guilt, but it would be nice)
They have done neither. They have done nothing to talk to the BBB to resolve issues. Nothing.
What this entire industry needs is trust. We have seen nothing from K&K to trust. It is just that simple.
You think people should just take a leap of faith because the deal looks good?
How exactly do you think people JUST took a leap of faith to go to companies to get loan mods? Didn't we just acknowledge that that was the wrong answer.
How many wrong answer must a homeowner PAY for to get a right answer?
I am not advocating this position without reservation. I was only suggesting that the process has the potential to be advantageous for a client given the right situation. As long as a client is aware of the individuals involved and the varying reports they can be allowed to decide for themselves if it is worth the cost to engage in the process. I don't under these circumstances have issue with the affiliate arrangement although I have very serious concerns about the way these affiliates have conducted themselves. Craigslist, mailers, with ridiculous claims and misguided information. I believe this is more that individuals with limited experience began regurgitating what they thought they understood and made huge errors than a direct or intentional misrepresentation of truth. I have been working on this process for several years now mostly with attorneys who file individual action but as I mentioned that only really creates opportunity for high net worth individuals and unfortunately it's not self serving motives that cause the price models. The banks will flood an attorney with motions to dismiss and other ridiculous responses that need to be addressed in an effort to utilize an attorneys billable hours estimate based on the retainer. After those hours are used an attorney will go to the client again and ask for more fees to continue the litigation and the bank is hoping that the client won't have means to continue. This is important because an attorney can't take floods of cases without compensation so the cost has been significant, using a mass intake case model those costs can be mitigated and open the door for many more people who need protections. My contention is that currently this is the only viable solution (financially) for those who can't afford higher priced individual counsel. Please note I said currently. I believe that soon there will be more options available to clients that will be in a similar price range, just not today. That being said if the client feels that they are willing to take the risk considering the benefit as well as the concerns that you and many have pointed out correctly then they should be allowed to make that decision. I dont intend to dismiss your or anyones homework on the individuals who are involved in this case I think due diligence is essential in vetting any option and as experienced individuals in finance and mortgage you can provide much needed insight and opinions in these matters. My point was only that, in some cases, this may be a viable option for some homeowners and potentially, at least for now, their only one in. As far as taking a leap of faith I would only say that eventually in any circumstance you have to take a leap. It's like sighting a gun, you can line it up all day but until you take a shot you'll never know if you sighted it correctly. Clients should be informed and anyone who suggests this program without advising a client of the issues is being dishonest but after that it's up to the individual but to call this an outright fraud based on the current information available I believe is folly.
Do_the_math - you obviously feel extremely threatened by Mr. Wright and his law suit. Do you mind to explain why? Are you working for BofA or for one of those quasi law firms that are spreading lies in order to get customers :) You know, piggybankblog is the only blog that doesn't sell anything to anyone. That blog does not even sell the false hope - John told everyone since the beginning that the fight will be tough, that all those greedy liars will be around to try to prevent the truth...Now, you're finally aware that you're losing this game and on your way down you want to bring with you as many people as possible :oops:
So, as I already mentioned, piggybankblog doesn't sell anything - they just give away an enormous amount of usefull information for everyone. Also, I'm surprised that Mr. Andelman didn't engage at all in this debate - maybe because there was a talk between Kramer and him about his REST PROGRAM :idea:
The other thing I would like to know is if Mr. Andelman has verification that Stein is going to sign the retainers and why he has not sought out Stein's response? :D
I am not detracting from the concept of the mass joinder lawsuit. I will not make a penny if it works, and I won' make a penny if it fails.
This is not a game. Attracting people to a program by deception, is a fraud. The lawsuit may not be a fraud, but the mechanism is.
The unscrupulous use of Ambassadors who were not licensed to do said work is ILLEGAL in the state of California. Issuing a blanket statement saying that "those agencies were not authorized" does not cover as an excuse. Fact of the matter is, it shouldn't have been done in the first place.
Doing this puts the question of legitimacy out there.
You can continue to recruit all interested parties to continue posting the greatness of K&K, but until they can prove that they have the legitimate interests of their clients at heart, I will keep on reporting it to all agencies.
Here is an official email from Mass Litigation:
Mass Litigation Alliance PC
CONTINUING TO WORK HARD TO HELP GROW YOUR BUSINESS
Mass Litigation Alliance Notification
Many have emailed or called regarding the "cease and desist" notifications they have been receiving via mail or email. IT IS CRITICAL to note these recent notifications are not coming from Phil Kramer. The emails coming from the following email address compliance@kramerkaslowpc.com is not an email solution from Phil Kramer. This entity has no authority to created policy regarding our intake center function and is to be disregarded.
There are certain reasons why Phil Kramer did extend notifications regarding unauthorized websites and marketing materials. Those issues have and will be addressed with complete authorization from counsel in association with tomorrow's launch of the new "Store Front Firm" Mass Litigation Alliance PC.
Again please disregard any and all correspondence from the non authorized entity Kramer-Kaslow PC.
I look forward to your participation (URGENT) on tomorrows webinar.
Sincerely,
Jeff Peterson
(866) 783-3317 x701
jpeterson@k2-law.com
Interesting and revealing that it is signed with an email address
k2-law.com
http://www.k2-law.com/editor/user_files/files/K2_Law_Affiliate_Updates_-_11-17-2010.pdf
I wonder why Kramer and Kaslow would send an email with A CONTACT EMAIL referring back to the website for ambassadors, that they claim they have a cease and desist order given to.
Seems very strange that that would happen .....
Sloppy work Boston67, Very sloppy.
So, as I already mentioned, piggybankblog doesn't sell anything - they just give away an enormous amount of usefull information for everyone. Also, I'm surprised that Mr. Andelman didn't engage at all in this debate - maybe because there was a talk between Kramer and him about his REST PROGRAM :idea:
The other thing I would like to know is if Mr. Andelman has verification that Stein is going to sign the retainers and why he has not sought out Stein's response? :D
Threatened by John Wright at Piggybankblog? More like offended. I don't co-sign to BS. If you read back through this thread and other threads that I posted on, I smelled something funny when I saw that John Wright was promoting Kramer & Kaslow, I saw Brookstone as an approved Of Counsel firm on Kramer & Kaslow's website, Brookstone also generated material for Kramer & Kaslow as per a document found on one of K & Ks approved intake partner's website, and then I found out the connections between Brookstone and United Law. The straw that broke the camel's back was the story about Mass Litigation Alliance and how Matthew Kanani Davis was thrown under the bus by John Wright. This, of course, is despite the fact that Kramer & Kaslow's website still shows Matt Davis and Mass Litigation Alliance as approved Of Counsel firms (I just checked www.kramer-kaslow.com again).
If I have to put on thigh high boot to wade through half-truths and deceptions, I look closer and report what I find.
As to my motivations and the speculation that I might "work for a bank", I'm not the one posting anonymously as a new poster. I have been a member of this forum for years, wrote the Whistleblower blog, and have devoted my time and efforts to investigate scams. You can Google my name, Krista Railey, and you can spend some time on this forum, Tickerforum, and Loansafe to know what I am about.
I would like to see Andelman speak up, and I suspect he is still researching the issue. Or he might be letting everyone duke it here because he might feel that it is a conflict of interest due to the Rest Report. I can see where attorneys litigating against the banks would use of the Rest Report the same as real estate professionals that do short sales, and those that assist borrowers in obtaining modifications. I have never used the Rest Report, as I only provide free help.
But this is not about the Rest Report, and it is not about modification firms other than the fact that many mod scammer jumped on the opportunity to sell mass joinders after the advance fee business model blew up.
I would like to hear what Mr. Kramer and Mr. Stein have to say. As Achtung stated previously, if the marketing issues were addressed upfront and honestly, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
And for the record, a large part of my angst is that the actions of some unscrupulous persons and businesses might derail other homeowner cases. I have no interest in jeopardizing the cases of thousands of homeowners. Conversely, I had no choice but to expose the issue when I found numerous affiliates selling it and discovered that fees were being jacked up to cover the fee split. A mass joinder of this magnitude and importance did not need affiliate marketers or pyramid type schemes. Individuals and bloggers would have happily donated time to put the word out.
As to whether Stein has signed the retainer agreements, I would like to know the answer to this question because I'm hearing that borrowers are in limbo.
Mass Litigation Alliance PC
CONTINUING TO WORK HARD TO HELP GROW YOUR BUSINESS
Mass Litigation Alliance Notification
Many have emailed or called regarding the "cease and desist" notifications they have been receiving via mail or email. IT IS CRITICAL to note these recent notifications are not coming from Phil Kramer. The emails coming from the following email address compliance@kramerkaslowpc.com is not an email solution from Phil Kramer. This entity has no authority to created policy regarding our intake center function and is to be disregarded.
There are certain reasons why Phil Kramer did extend notifications regarding unauthorized websites and marketing materials. Those issues have and will be addressed with complete authorization from counsel in association with tomorrow's launch of the new "Store Front Firm" Mass Litigation Alliance PC.
Again please disregard any and all correspondence from the non authorized entity Kramer-Kaslow PC.
I look forward to your participation (URGENT) on tomorrows webinar.
Sincerely,
Jeff Peterson
(866) 783-3317 x701
jpeterson@k2-law.com
I was thinking the exact same thing. Will the real Kramer & Kaslow PLEASE stand up?
ROFLMAO!!!! According to the scam banned website person, the other website is a scam. I really can't come up with material this good on my own.
Fresh from the press :)
Philip Kramer and Mass Litigation Alliance do not speak with Mr. Stein’s authority, but have potentially either misrepresented or misunderstood the facts. Please look at exhibit A, where I have highlighted certain parts that clearly substantiate my claims.
Exhibit A - http://www.johnwrightvsbofa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/transcript.pdf
Exhibit B - This is the Twitter on Mr. Stein’s page that states:
"Imposters of the Doberman are out there, have been reported to the Authorities, and I will be shutting them down this week."
Fact. 11:45 PM Feb 26th via web - http://twitter.com/MJSAssociates/status/41765775853223936
Philip Kramer and Mass Litigation Alliance do not speak with Mr. Stein’s authority, but have potentially either misrepresented or misunderstood the facts. Please look at exhibit A, where I have highlighted certain parts that clearly substantiate my claims.
Exhibit A - http://www.johnwrightvsbofa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/transcript.pdf
Exhibit B - This is the Twitter on Mr. Stein’s page that states:
"Imposters of the Doberman are out there, have been reported to the Authorities, and I will be shutting them down this week."
Fact. 11:45 PM Feb 26th via web - http://twitter.com/MJSAssociates/status/41765775853223936
You forgot to post a link to John Wright's story. Let me help you out by providing a link:
http://www.piggybankblog.com/2010/01/05/johns-daily-blo/
Here is an interesting quote:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/2/prweb8128061.htm
The press release included a link at the bottom of page: http://www.kramer-kaslow.com. When we first viewed this link, if just had a “Warning” flashing on the right hand side of page, which would take you to a page full of cease and desist letters.
And here is another interesting quote:
Mass Litigation Alliance, A Professional Corporation, (MLA,pc) is the National Intake partner for all Mass Joinder Litigations. Philip A Kramer serves in an of counsel capacity to MLA,pc
Considering that I had evidence that suggested that Philip Kramer did not have Mr. Stein’s authority to appoint intake partners for either the Ronald Vs. BofA or the Wright Vs. BofA lawsuit, I contacted another source, who then gave me another page to post that reflected what I had seen when the press release was first done, which did not have Mass Litigation Alliance on it-http://www.kramerkaslowpc.com/ This is because I was interested in protecting the public from such potentially deceptive advertising, while I knew that Mr. Stein had not given Mr. Kramer this kind of authority.
Before: http://www.kramerkaslowpc.com/
After: http://www.kramer-kaslow.com/news.html
With that being said, there was a comment left from someone from the Loan Safe site, who seemed to think that I should be embarrassed, simply because they were the brain surgeon that realized that I changed the link, while she stated that the original one displayed that Mass Litigation Alliance was an approved intake partner, and she did not realize that it said this only after the change. Her screen name is “Do The Math,” but obviously she was missing a very important part of the equation, which is why I rather refer to her as “Did Not Do The Math Right.” If “Did Not Do The Math Right” had been paying attention, she might have noticed that the Kramer and Kenslow site seemed to have done a bait and switch. I have noticed that “Did Not Do The Math Right” seems to have a potential agenda of trying to discredit me, while she advertises another site.
First off, I will call your attention to the same press release referenced in the blog and posted above which is also on Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20110210/bs_prweb/prweb8128061_13
Now scroll down to the bottom of the press release, and notice the name Brookstone Law PC. Yes, that is right, Brookstone Law PC issued the press release on Kramer.
Next, I've been following this closely and I saved copies of the websites before and after the changes. The original website was www.kramer-kaslow.com. I noted at least three major changes to this site.
1. The site originally showed two approved intake partners on the warning page, and three approved Of Counsel Firms on the main page. I posted the information on this thread shortly after the site was announced (see first response to this thread- and yes, I did save a copy of this thread). To refresh your memory, here is what I copied and pasted from their website main page:
The Law Firms listed below are the solely exclusive law firms working specifically with Kramer & Kaslow. All others are not affiliated. In order to protect your rights and security in this case all matters pursuant to Kramer & Kaslow are only authorized through the law firms below:
Matt Davis Law Firm
Brookstone Law, PC
Mass Litigation Alliance,pc
Shortly after posting this, the site deleted Brookstone Law as well as Hartford Dunn that had been shown as an approved National Intake Partner for Brookstone Law on the warning page. Here is a copy of the original waring page showing Hartford Dunn as an approved intake partner:
Since the parties involved seem to be so fond of press releases, here is an interesting one for you from Hartford Dunn:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/2/prweb8149809.htm
Quote:
We'll just file this under "Things that make you go hmmmm..." and move on.
2. After this information was released and the www.kramer-kaslow.com site was changed to remove Brookstone Law PC (and link to the website) and Hartford Dunn, John Wright released the story about Mass Litigation Alliance not being authorized and being behind the K2 law scandal. With this came a new website: www.kramerkaslowpc.com. While Mass Litigation Alliance was removed from the warning page as an approved intake partner, Matt Davis was still listed as an approved Of Counsel Law firm on the main page. Doh!
Here is a copy to refresh your memory:
3. The fact that John Wright is aware of the issue that Kramer is not authorized by Stein and he didn't just come out and report that particular fact is disconcerting. John Wright failed to report that not only were the firms listed on Kramer and Kaslow's site not authorized, but KRAMER HIMSELF WAS NOT AUTHORIZED!
4. Why didn't Mr. Stein issue Cease & Desist letters himself and post them to his own website warning consumers that Kramer is not authorized? Nothing in the Cease & Desist letters provides consumers with any type of warning to this fact, and the address listed to surrender all materials and clients names (including Mr. Stein) go to Kramer's address.
Guess we should file all of this under "Things that make you go hmmmm..."
Martin, Captain Obvious says: Something just isn't right with the Philip Kramer's interview.
For one, I call your attention to the hearing transcript for the Ronald v Bank of America dated 2/3/11 posted by John Wright on 3/2/11:
http://www.johnwrightvsbofa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/transcript.pdf
In reading the transcript carefully, attorney Keith Klein brought the advertising of Mitchel Stein and Kramer & Kaslow to the Judge's (Hon. William F. Highberger) attention. According to the transcript, Mitchel Stein (as an Officer for the Court) stated to the Judge that Kramer is not entitled to represent that he is working with Stein. See pages 61-66.
Based on 2/3/11 Hearing and the fact that Kramer is NOT entitled to represent that he is working with Stein, why did Philip Kramer not address this with you during your interview resulting in the article that was published on 2/2/11?
The original article you wrote on Kramer & Kaslow was published on 1/27/11.
You also posted an article subsequent to the 2/3/11 hearing that was published on February 18, 2011 regarding the warning issued by Kaslow & Kramer. Yet Mr. Kramer did not feel it was necessary to advise you that contrary to your prior interview with him, that he was not entitled to represent himself as working with Stein as per Stein's representation to the Court?
Although Mr. Stein has posted a warning on ONE of his two websites, the warning is vague and does not clearly state that Kramer & Kaslow is not entitled to represent that he is working with Stein.
File this under "More things that make you go hmmmm....."
Note: Original post corrected to show that Attorney Keith Klein for the Defendant brought up the issue of Kramer / Stein advertising.
What a wonderful day :)
WE ARE ALL JOHN WRIGHT AND WE ARE ALL FIGHTING BACK :)
How is is possible that one of our real estate agents went to a 2 day class from the Mass Litigation Alliance and is receiving $5000 for referring a homeowner to join the lawsuit? If they become a W-2 employee then are they getting around the fee splitting? Is this another way to make money off of desperate homeowners?
There is no such thing as getting around the fee splitting. it is not allowed.
It appears that the whole mass litigation may be just another scam to get money from homeowners.
Very disappointing because mass joinder suits could be used to force banks to do the right thing.
Rule number one ... if you need a lawyer, go to a lawyer.
Hey Everyone...
Okay... look... there is so much vagary and innuendo going on here, it's become impossible to determine anything with any certainty from this thread of comments. And that's not only not helping anyone, but it's sure to cause an interested reader to either become confused or ignore it in its entirety.
I point this out because I want to believe that everyone here is commenting for the right reasons... because they care about homeowners and don't want to see them deceived. But that goal is not well served by offering our unfounded beliefs or baseless opinions.
Do_the_math... You know I think very highly of your knowledge and your mission, but posing things that end with: "Things that make you go hmmm...." is the kind of thing I'm talking about, and please allow me to explain why, in this case, I think we have to be more careful that that.
First of all, my article was in no sense an endorsement of anything, nor was it a condemnation of anything... except illegal marketing practices. Mr. Kramer responded to the questions I asked him quite clearly and I have no reason not to take him at his word at this point.
Since that article ran, he has taken action to correct the things that were brought to his attention. He's sent out dozens of cease and desist letters. Made very public the listing of Websites that were unauthorized, and seemingly been quite aggressive in chasing down all of the other items I've brought to him over the past few weeks.
I've also contacted him on behalf of any homeowner that emailed me and made sure that he followed up with each and that their individual issues were resolved. And as reports of improprieties have come in, I've continued to ask him the tough questions and he has yet to be in any way evasive or non-responsive.
In fact. to the contrary, I would say that he has been quite candid and direct, takes reports of anything substantive seriously, and takes corrective action swiftly. So far, so good... as they say.
Of course the question on everyone's mind after reading my article was whether to believe him or not... and after he took the steps he took to correct the unauthorized marketing sites... that question changed into: Did he know and take those corrective steps only after I wrote about him, or did he really not know, and took those steps after learning about what was going on?
I have to tell you all that in my view, and Do_The_Math is going to want to smack me again... the question is not that important as long as things are being corrected, because to me, at this point... this isn't about Phil Kramer... it'a about the 1400+ homeowners who are participating in a very real and very difficult lawsuit against the largest banks on the planet.
Metaphorically speaking, it's like there are 1400 homeowners on the bus and I'm not going to blow it up because the driver didn't have his license or insurance card, or even was drinking a few beers when the bus left the station... as long as he's got those things now, isn't drunk and has sworn off booze from this point forward, I'm of a mond to let the bus pass and even help it reach its destination.
I'm certainly not going to start shooting at the tires because I have an opinion about an issue that's since been fixed, and therefore no longer directly relevant to the passengers reaching their destination. I very much want the people on the bus to get where their trying to go. I'll leave the shooting at tires to the bankers who I'm quite sure will do everything they can to blow up the bus, regardless of the casualties.
So, did he know and only move to correct things because I wrote about him, or did he not know, and upon learning what was happening take the steps to stop it... or did he know to some degree, but not en total, or maybe he knew of some things, but didn't know to what extent they were prevalent... the possible answers are as infinite as they are irrelevant
As long as they are being corrected, and at this point it certainly appears that's the case, I'd prefer that Mr. Kramer concentrate all of his efforts at achieving the objectives that his clients are hoping he will achieve. I certainly wouldn't feel very good about somehow nailing him for knowing about what happened in the past and was since corrected, and as a result, being any part of what caused him to fail and the banks to win.
I want to give you an example of something... yesterday I was told by several independent sources that there's a company in LA that is selling participation in the lawsuit for $12,000, and then paying Kramer & Kaslow just $3,000 and pocketing the difference as a "commission". And they were convinced that Phil Kramer had to know this was going on.
I said I was skeptical about Kramer knowing... I just didn't think it made any sense. The only reasons to offer someone $9,000 out of $12,000 are that: 1. The person receiving the $9k is expected to do the lion's share of the work... and that's not the case here. Or, 2. Because it's next to impossible to sell whatever it is that's being sold... and that's anything but the case here. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen anything in such demand as suing a bank at some reasonable cost.
So, I thought... why in the world would Phil Kramer make such a deal with anyone? I mean... if I'm to believe he's a "bad guy," am I also to believe that he's also the most generous "bad guy" in the history of the world? I thought "bad guys" who scam people were also greedy... I've never heard one described as "magnanimous," that's for sure.
Well, I called Phil Kramer tonight to ask him if he knew anything about this $12,000 deal and as I finished my sentence he almost blurted out the words, "Oh my God." In my appraisal of his words, they were said almost involuntarily... before he had time to think. He was quiet for a moment and although I couldn't see him, I felt like he wanted to say, "God damn it," but held back. He then said that he's never heard of such a thing, and then went on to say, "Why would anyone do that when they can come directly to our firm and sign up for five grand?"
For the record, I believe him on this issue. I don't think he had ever heard of anyone paying $12,000 to participate in the suits he has filed.
In addition, during the course of this past week, he has found a few people that paid some unauthorized company and in each case, Kramer told me that he has willingly agreed to represent them just as if they had paid his firm, even though they did not. That will mean that he will have to pay all of the fees and costs himself, which add up fast in this kind of litigation, but he said if they thought they were hiring him, then that's enough... they did.
Now, I know some will argue that he only did such a thing because I exposed him and he has to correct such things now, but I don't know that to be true, and as I said... I'm not sure I care all that much... as long as things are set right now.
Lastly, as to John Wright of PiggyBankBlog... I like John a lot, as a person... he's genuine and he's taken action to create a blog and fight back against the banks, no small undertaking I assure you. But, he's also relatively new to blogging, and the responsibility that comes along with publishing information and opinion to the public.
You see, I talked with John earlier for quite a while, maybe 60-90 minutes. I had heard that he was "bashing" Kramer and his lawsuit, and that he was saying he had "proof" of something. I wanted to know what he was referring to so I went onto his site's chat page and asked him to call me... and a few minutes later he called.
I went over with him, in great detail, including reviewing court transcripts and various sections of his blog, everything he thought he had and the conclusions he was drawing from the information, and at the end of all that, he saw that there were several key things that represented gaps in the story he told. And that he could be right and could be wrong, and could be somewhere in the middle... in other words... he didn't know for sure.
As I told him at the time, having written 430 fairly in-depth articles over the last few years, it;s very easy for the mind to substitute facts for what are actually beliefs.
I haven't written anything further about Kramer or his lawsuits because I've been researching the overall situation... talking with at least couple dozen homeowners, some of whom are participating and others who are not, but have considered it. Talking with other lawyers who have information or knowledge about the marketing practices, and checking in with Phil to ask him one thing or another.
I am very aware that if I write something viewed as positive about the lawsuits, then it may be viewed by some as an endorsement and cause them to sign on, and if I write something negative, it may cause someone to not participate who perhaps should, or even cause some to withdraw when in fact, this may be their last or best option.
I know that what I write has the potential to influence others so I take extreme care to never get my facts wrong... ever... and I'm confident that you could go through my archives line by line and not find anything that's factually incorrect... except in two instances.
Once I called Massachusetts a "judicial foreclosure state," and it's a non-judicial foreclosure state. Frankly, Judge Long's ruling in Land Court confused me, it was about the lack of an endorsed assignment, and I thought you had to be in a judicial state for that kind of ruling. And another time I omitted the word "new" in a headline.
In both instances, my readers emailed and commented loud and clear within only a few hours, and I corrected both mistakes by fixing what was wrong, and I placed a NOTICE at the top of each page saying that I had made an error, what the error was, and how long it was wrong before being corrected. My opinions are my own, but my facts are rock solid right, or I hear about it and PDQ, as my mother used to say... "Pretty Darn Quick".
I'm telling you all of this because I also said as much to John Wright, and he was very appreciative... in fact he said that he's so new to this blogging thing, that at times, when he writes on his blog he doesn't even really think that anyone's reading it. He said he often looks at his site as more of a "protest circus" than something that informs and educates... until now that is.
I hope I haven't done anything to embarrass John in any way... that was certainly not my intent. As I said, I think very highly of what he's done, and I only wanted to point out to him that if any of us that writes a blog is ever wrong... we not only risk losing whatever credibility we have with our readers, but we risk misinforming someone and in this case that could have serious consequences.
I want everyone to know that this afternoon I was contacted by a woman who lives in Sacramento. She's in her sixties and cares for her mother who is in her nineties. Her story about the hellish torture she went through with Chase for two years before getting her loan modified, and about what she has seen in Sacramento as a result of the foreclosure crisis, brought tears to my eyes, and I've heard quite a few.
After 10 months of paying her PERMANENT modified payments, Chase recently sent LPS, Lender Processing Services, to tell her that Chase would not be honoring her contract and that she would have to pay a much higher amount or face losing her home. I cannot tell you how severe her story was, and although she is in no shape to fight any longer, her mother's life literally depends on it, she cannot survive a move.
She went to a lawyer in Sacramento and showed him the contract and he said that she did have a case but that suing the bank would be costly and time consuming. Taking care of her mom had meant stopping working and there was no way she could afford either the cost or the time.
She then told me that she believed that "God must have sent me to the Kramer lawsuit," because she feels as if joining the suit was "a Godsend."
And I've talked to many others like her as well.
Not everyone is as aware as many of the people that read Mandelman Matters, in fact I often almost brag that my readers are smarter than those found on most blogs... you guys are serious readers, after all, or you wouldn't be here... and not only that but you all have at least some appreciation for some fairly sophisticated sarcasm.
But there are quite a few of my readers who depend on Mandelman Matters to help them understand a variety of subject matter... to help them better understand what;s going on around them... because they trust me to tell them the truth and to be right in what I say, and I take that trust very seriously.
So, while you'll never see me deleting what someone posts in the comments section, and while I do love it when people do comment as you guys have done here, I would encourage you to consider that there are times when others look here to get information they can depend on, and not vagary and innuendo.
I'm all in favor of shredding someone who we KNOW with certainty is a "bad guy" or gal. I suppose... (it always seems to be guy though, doesn't it?) And there have certainly been more than a few that have graced us with their presence in the last few years.
But, Do_The_Math... and I'm not trying to pick on you, I swear... you listed all those Websites here immediately following my article, and Kramer went right after them, shutting them down or at least announcing them as unauthorized parties. He's certainly not ignoring the issues that were raised, and I've continued to bring things to his attention that he has consistently responded to... and fast, in my view.
And achtung... as you said in the comment just above this one... "mass joinder lawsuits could be used to force banks to do the right thing"
and I agree. And the Kramer and Stein suits are at this point, definitely real lawsuits... being brought by real lawyers.
But... then wavehntr says:
And you respond:
But I just want to point out that neither of those sentences contain any facts. One is hearsay and the other is conjecture based on hearsay. I'm not saying that the claim about the real estate agent isn't true... maybe it is and maybe it isn't... or maybe it is but it's the result of some rogue salesperson speaking out of turn, or maybe it was misinterpreted by the agent... or maybe the agent just wanted to make it sound better than it was in order to get others involved... or God only knows.
Regardless, if I can verify the agent's story, then I can investigate it and bring it to Kramer's attention and await his response. But otherwise... it's just something someone said to someone else.
These are very hard times for everyone, but have you noticed that few are yet willing to admit it... so many people are barely holding on while putting on their "everything's fine" face. As if no one wants to be the first to panic at what's ahead if things don't improve... and things are not going to improve, in fact they are unquestionably going to get progressively worse.
Fear... makes people say and do all sorts of inexplicable things... Stress is a powerful force.
I'm not trying to be critical for the sake of being critical, I'm just saying that there are real people involved and we should be cognizant of that fact, because we want to help.
Also... I'll be posting an article in the next few days on Mass Joinder Math, that will look into the finances needed to sue a giant bank on behalf of a thousand plaintiffs... not specifically related to Kramer's lawsuits, but in general based on my interviewing lawyers who have gone up against the giants of industry. I think you'll see that the Mass Joinder is not the pot of gold at the rainbow's end unless you win.
In my opinion, it took a lot of courage for Kramer and Stein to embark on this path. They both have impressive legal careers that they put on the line to fight the banks on behalf of homeowners who don't have much money. I'm told that they've spent about $1 million to-date.
I've spoken to several other lawyers who are considering filing joinder suits but none has as yet... and I'm sure at least part of what's holding them back has something to do with fear... it's a big leap into the public eye against the most formidable opponents ever encountered. And there are 1400 homeowners hoping against hope for some justice.
We exposed the illicit marketing efforts to Phil Kramer and he responded. So, is that the signal for all to further the attack as he tries to clean up whatever it is that went wrong? What if we do that and we were wrong?
We want them to win, don't we?
Oh, and one more thing... a specific thing... Do_The_Math...
I read through the transcript you are quoting from with John Wright and there is nothing wrong or inconsistant about it. The bank and then the judge brings up the mailer that I posted in my article. It says it's from Kramer & Kaslow, but I know it's not.
Then Mitchell Stein says that it could have been mailed out by Bank of America for all he knows, and the judge says what I've been saying about Mr. Kramer... that he has to take his word at face value.
The judge acknowledges that "Kramer, or whoever is purporting to be Kramer..."
And later Stein says that Kramer is not associated with his case... specifically he says "Not now."
John Wright added those sentences to other things he said he knew, some of which he did know and some of which he didn't know... for sure. He then concluded that all of that meant that Mass Lit Alliance was a scam, saying they represent Stein's BofA suit when Stein says they don't.
The whole thought process required several leaps and a fair amount of conjecture and is a perfect example of what I'm saying isn't helpful and if allowed to go on unchecked will likely harm a lot of people... and it really won't be Kramer's fault, although he'll be blamed... it's be ours.
And at the end of the proverbial day... the banks will laugh as they win again. If we've got facts let's get them addressed, but whipped up conjecture, leaky logic, and hyperbole... sorry, leave me out.
I've talked to John Wright about this... and while he may be okay with this sort of thing on piggybankblog... it's not Mandelman Matters material.
Anybody have any idea what legal argument K-2 is pursuing?
Martin,
Thank you for speaking up. First off, let me be clear that I was not insinuating that you had done anything wrong in your prior articles. You reported the facts as they were given to you, and I do not fault you on this. I am further relieved that your silence on this issue has been due to you taking the time to research the many issues and gather more facts. While I agree that the most important thing is protecting homeowner’s ability to gain recourse against the banks, I do not believe that the issues have been resolved and that a substantial amount of homeowners aren’t at risk.
Going back to the issue of Philip Kramer, and the law firm of Kramer & Kaslow, I submit:
In the article published Feb 2, 2011, you wrote the following based on your interview:
Based on how your article states that Kramer elaborated on the Ronald vs. Bank of America case, does this or does it not leave a reader to believe that Kramer was currently involved in the Ronald vs. Bank of America case?
Yes, it does.
In fact, the article leads the reader to believe that Kramer & Kaslow was currently involved in the Bank of America case as it was the only case verified as an actual case in the article (although others were briefly mentioned).
Yet the court transcript indicates that Kramer was out of the case (page 62-63). The transcript also shows that Kramer was not entitled to represent that he was working with Stein. So, based on the representations made to the Court in the Ronald vs. Bank of America case on 2/3/11, Kramer was not entitled to make any representations in regard to the Bank of America case that would lead the public to believe that Kramer currently involved and that the public should contact his office for information on the case.
This is a simple fact.
As to the websites and warnings posted to the website, there is nothing in the original or subsequent websites and page corrections that would lead the public to conclude that Kramer was not entitled to represent Stein on the Bank of America case.
Hi Do_The_Math...
No, I'm actually with you on this one 100%... and I'm glad you pointed out my reference to Ronald v. Bank of America in the article, because I hadn't thought about that, but it's a good thing to highlight because it does have the potential to cause questions... and this one is just me.
At the time I wrote the article I had just started learning about the suit and the only complaint I had to read was the Ronald v. BofA case. So, I was using it as a generic descriptor as opposed to as a reference to a specific case. In other words, it was just my phraseology and not him directing the discussion towards that case... I just didn't know any better at the time.
I would have written more about it, but I know that if it comes off the least bit positive, it has the potential to sound like an endorsement, and the reverse is also true. So, I wanted to take the time to speak with literally dozens of homeowners from all over, and then be able to pose questions to Phil Kramer based on what I've learned.
If he's the real deal, then he'll be consistent and if he's not, there'll be inconsistencies and he'll try to dodge my direct questions... I know what I'm doing in this regard, and all I'm saying is that so far... he's been entirely candid, responsive and forthcoming.
Call me when you have any free time so we can chat...
I do not agree. We don't want the wrong lawsuit to win. We want the right lawsuit to win.
Winning is about doing things the right way all the time. If one cheats to win, it really is not much of a victory.
Many times the victories that are based in cheating, are overturned in the next round. At that point, we are all at square one.
Getting back to K-2, If they had a track record of being this Fine litigation team, I would have no problem with them. However, they have not shown that pattern.
So what are you left with? An attorney group that may or may not be sophisticated enough to do the litigation that the clients deserve. Where does that leave the clients? Poorer, and potentially more homeless.
My comment to "wavehntr" was honest. If K-2 has this arrangement (which they do) and the arrangement is not legal (which it is not) then the whole is tainted and their mass joinder is fraudulent
* I do see that I should have worded the sentence a little different and not said "all" when i meant "this" mass joinder.
My comment still stands: If you are not directly conferring with an attorney on a mass joinder, then you are wasting your money.
I never said you shouldn't directly confer with an attorney when participating in a mass joinder... or any other type of lawsuit, for that matter. In fact, I think I specifically said in my first Kramer article that one should never hire an attorney without talking to or meeting with the attorney.
I don't know where you inferred that from, but i was not saying YOU said anything about retaining legal representation.
I was repeating what my answer was, to "wavehntr".
What I want to know is why Klein is in bed with Brookstone Law? Brookstone is now acting as a distributor for Klein's Ronald vs. B of A case.
I also want to know why Kramer & Stein did not go to the Bar Association, California Attorney General, or immediately procure a TRO against any and all entities using their name?
On one hand, you have all these illicit entities crawling in the woodwork- supposedly acting without authorization on a magnitude that is both criminal and potentially injurious to the public using both Kramer's and Stein's trade dress. On the other hand, you have Kramer and Stein making no effort to inform the public that there was no valid affiliation tween the two. Then, if you happen to possess a third hand, you have Stein who leaves a miserably deficient and vague warning on one page of his two websites. Now, if you three hands and can juggle, there is also the added factor of the relationship between Brookstone and Stein. And all this while Brookstone and Kramer are filing additional cases in Orange County.
There is also the question, given the 2/3/11 transcript, as to why the Cease & Desist letters originated from Kramer when the purported victim is Stein- and again, Kramer is not authorized to represent Stein on the B of A case which the scamsters were selling????
This is really starting to sound like the Abbott and Costello mortgage litigation version of "Who's on First".
The claim that the structure of the affiliates is "illegal" at least as currently defined is incorrect. Rules relating to referrals are generally defined on a national level but open to subjective interpretation by states and their individual bar or attorney governing body. I have spoken with many attorneys and each one has their own opinion and definition on what a referral fee consists of and how it is applied in their minds and with their state. Many attorneys I've spoken to over the years have had lengthy discussions with their state reps in order to get a feel for how those arrangements are going to be ruled. The way this is structured at least as I know it, is not an arrangement from an attorney directly to a referral source thus capping rules would not apply. I understand your concerns but again I have to say that to suggest something is illegal, a scam, a ripoff, etc. without a very clear and defined basis for those allegations only hurts credibility and not necessarily those that you disagree with. Again I am not throwing my support behind this action but I would say that in respect to comments at least we should deflect some of our personal opinions or at least make sure that everyone knows that is all they are. (This of course is my opinion only and not to be taken for material representation on this specific issue) :)
1. Unauthorized Practice of Law: No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar. Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 6125. The “practice of law” includes giving legal advice and advertising or holding oneself as an attorney or
entitled to practice law when in fact such person is not an active member of the State Bar. See Birbower, Montalbano, Candon & Frank, P.C. v. Sup. Ct., 17 Cal. 4th 119, 128
(1998); Bus. & Prof. § 6126(a).
The penalties and remedies for the unauthorized practice of law include (a) being
convicted of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000
or both; (b) actual damages suffered by your prospective clients; (c) restitution of
amounts paid; (d) reasonable attorneys fees and costs expended to rectify errors made in the unlawful practice of law; (e) prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date of loss to the date of judgment; and (f) rescission of sales made in connection with a
violation of law. Bus. & Prof. § 6126.5(a)(1)-(6).
2. Unlawful Solicitation: Unlawful solicitations include using firm names, trade names,
fictitious names or other professional designations falsely stating or implying that you
have a relationship with another lawyer or law firm. CRPC § 1-400(E).
Additionally, the State Bar Act makes it unlawful for any person to act as a runner or
capper for an attorney or to solicit any business for an attorney in any public place or
upon private property. Bus. & Prof. § 6152(a)(1). The term “runner or capper” refers to
anyone acting for consideration as an agent of an attorney or law firm in the solicitation
or procurement of business for the attorney or firm. Bus. & Prof. § 6151(a). It is a
misdemeanor for any person to act as a “runner or capper” or to solicit business for an
attorney. A second or subsequent offense could be a felony. Bus. & Prof. § 6153.
I am not going to dive in and define the law in this case as it is not my position or designation to do so. But that being said my point remains. You have interpreted the law as you see it and feel that based on your knowledge of how these "affiliate" groups were structured that it is a violation.
I am saying some may not see it the same way including those who are charged with enforcing it.
The rules are open to subjective analysis and it really only matters what the state decides on the matter so for you or I to suggest that something is illegal is not really your position to do so. Unless of course you work for the bar and they have asked you to define this specific instance which I assume is not the case.
Again I will make it abundantly clear that I have not made a determination on the matter but when I do it will be certainly nothing more than my opinion. For me to state openly on a blog that something is something it turns out not to be is not only just bad judgement but I could very well putting myself on the line if I damaged someone.
We are all interested I believe in bringing these institutions to account for what has happened so I appreciate the passion and commitment that so many who've posted very clearly have I just can't help but think that we do ourselves a great disservice by stating things as material fact that may very well end up not to be or prove to have ever been.
I also want to be clear that there were obvious and distinct problems with what these "affiliate" groups were doing in respect to their promises and claims I do contend that the nature of the relationship may well be within guidelines. I don't know if that was deliberate attempt to deceive or just a bunch of guys who didn't know what they were doing but in either case it is inexcusable and it needs to be addressed. I don't mean to tread too lightly on the issues it just seems like those aspects had been covered ad nauseum already but I don't mean to dismiss them as they are significant and important issues.
I would not venture to imply your opinion on the matter. I only posted the rule as defined by the State of California.
They make it clear what is legal and what is not.
That being said there is a specific structure and registry process for a company to do said action legally. ( I will dig that up some other time).
Until it is stated that the people or organization has not registered to comply with the tenets set forth by the State of California, there cannot be a statement of legality or legitimacy for said "affiliates".
So You are correct. I cannot force my interpretation of the law, on a structure that I don't particularly know.
However, I can say that after perusing the sites that are listed as affiliates, the affiliates would be open to challenge on several grounds. It is not my place to report them for their deficiencies under the rules. But I do have the knowledge and ability to define their actions as inappropriate according to the rules of the State of California.
Now that Kramer & Kaslow have been exposed, the affiliates are being moved over to Mass Litigation Alliance.
Check out all these websites (note the different phone numbers):
http://mlapcadvisors.com/litigation.php
http://masslitigationattorney.com/
http://masslitalliance.org/
http://www.lenderlit.com/
http://www.masslitigationpc.org/
http://mass-litigation.com/index.php
http://masslitalliance.net/
http://capitalloanmodification.com/logged.php
http://justmtgloans.com/contact-us.php
http://www.legalfreeandclear.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95&Itemid=69&tmpl=component&type=raw
http://masslitigationpc.org/litigation.php
http://chartermortgageonline.com/index.php
http://bank77.com/faqlog.php
http://www.masslitigationalliancepc.com/faqlog.php
http://mlaintake.com/faqlog.php
http://joindercase.com/faqs.php
http://defendyourdeed.com/faqs.php
http://litalliance.com/litigation.php
http://tomboldt.masslitalliance.org/Index.html
http://www.landingpageace.com/faqs.php
http://usmasslitigation.com/faqs.php
http://litigationintake.com/faqs.php
Now here is something that I think is particularly special. Check out this website for Homelife Solutions: (Mind you, Homelife Solutions was sent a Cease & Desist letter from Kramer & Kaslow)
http://www.homelifesolution.com/Associate_Programs.php
The page is for affiliate opportunities. Now scroll down to the left hand bottom of the page, and note where it says:
Be sure and click on the privacy policy that also show Mass Litigation Alliance.
Here is a copy of the Cease and Desist letter from Kramer & Kaslow:
http://www.kramer-kaslow.com/pdfs/legal/Homelife.pdf
And here is the page showing Homelife as a banned website.
http://www.kramer-kaslow.com/news.html
Other banned Kramer & Kaslow sites and affiliates have also made the transition to Mass Litigation Alliance such as this one:
http://www.kandklitigation.com/faq.php
This website is also on the banned/unauthorized list of websites on www.kramer-kaslow.com. Now click on on "Home" and see where it goes. If you guessed Mass Litigation Alliance, you guessed right.
Wow.. Legal free and clear.com ... Misrepresentation right in the web address.
That's incredible. To hint, imply, or even suggest that the end result of litigation would be this outcome is so flawed but to use it as the address for a site is just too much.
I concede, these guys can't seem to keep their crap in order. I have a huge problem with affiliates who would misrepresent the outcomes of a lawsuit I've spoken with individuals at the offices involved and they are real and clear as to what can and can't be expected but it seems these affiliates are having a hard time maintaining the same level of professionalism.
I would agree with dothemath and the others that have said to hold onto your money.. This just seems to dangerous to risk money on at this point. IMHO
Ok, time to drop my pants, I listened to the Masslitalliance Eebinar on Monday evening, and called their "group" on Tuesday. I also looked and the link above, and after an hour of reading and 800mg of Ibuprofen, I am not sure if I am any better off.
Simple questions:
1) It appears that Phil Kramer has no legal participation in the Ronald v BofA action and therefore, if one is to follow up as an interested client, the should contact the appropriate "Stein" in the matter which is who and how?
2) I get the fact that MassLit Alliance is riding the coattails of anyone they can, and scheming and scamming their way into the recordbooks. Are there any legitimate intake agents that work in conjunction with the attorney Stein, that are worth contacting?
DASOMFS
In all cases, my advice would be to only contact "The Law Offices of _________________ ." Be it Mitchell Stein or Phillip Kramer. Also, I'm still waiting to review this next amended complaint, but I'm not at all sure that joining the Ronald case holds any big advantage over another. While you'd be correct to think that Ronald is further along, the truth is, not by all that much, and there are also advantages in things that are Version 2.0 as compared with 1.0. Just offering my thoughts...
Always been a big fan of two concepts: Slow and steady wins the race, and the largest boat tends to survuve the storm.
DAS
DASOMFS,
Perhaps you should consider the comment posted on Mitchell Stein's Facebook page before deciding to work through an "intake agent":
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=151971788197684&id=131441766920135
As to K2 Law, Kramer & Kaslow, and Mass Litigation Alliance (and affiliates), Mitchell Stein has stated on his website that he is not affiliated with Mass Litigation Alliance, and the 2.3.11 transcript show that Kramer is not authorized either.
However, from what I understand, this won't deter the affiliates from taking your money. My suggestion is NOT to hire any firm or attorney unless you sit down with that attorney and have the attorney countersign the retainer agreement when you pay the retainer. Also, since most of the affiliates are earning a large commission, be sure and request a discount for cutting out the middle man.
Or better yet, you might want to ask Stein for this deal: (Stein also made this comment on his Facebook page):
Here is another comment on Stein's Facebook comment thread:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=151971788197684&id=131441766920135
Could someone please call me at 9xx-7xx-0xxx. Im desperate at this point.
Thank you and god bless you with all the help you given to all the homeowners. You are the leader of this revolution.
I expect to see a lot these type of comments around the internet soon. This gentleman says he paid $5000 in December and his home is scheduled for trustee's sale next week!!
So my answer to DASOMFS is this, if you have money to throw away, you can roll the dice with an affiliate/intake for Stein. Or you can find another method of resolving your issue that does not involve firms with this type of scandal unfolding around them.
NOTE: I x'd out the phone number posted on Facebook.
The original Facebook message has been removed along with my follow up comment. The Jd Singh original comment was replaced with another comment thanking Mr. Stein for the fast response from his office.
So there you have it- the best way to contact Stein and get action is to contact him on Facebook and complain.
Needless to say, I cannot comment on Mr. Stein's Facebook.
I am a client of M.J. Stein. I have tried all 3 #'s I have for him and can't get ahold of anyone. Phones just ring or is not in service etc.
Anyone have a good contact # for his office? TY
Anyone have a good contact # for his office? TY
Have you tried posting comments to Stein's Facebook page? He seems to respond to that- especially if you provide details on how you got signed up for the case and to who monies were paid. Copy or print the page after you post a comment in case it gets deleted.
I'm looking for homeowners who signed up for the case through K2 Law, Kramer & Kaslow, or any of the affiliates/intake specialists.
Check out this transcript of a conversation between Steve Rhodes and a Mass Litigation marketer:
http://getoutofdebt.org/26728/mass-joinder-mortgage-litigation-secret-shopper-call-transcript
Steve Rhodes posed as a secret shopper and the transcript details what was discussed. Needless to say, the conversation is very disturbing.
The California Department of Real Estate has issued a FRAUD WARNING in connection with upfront fees charged on Mass Joinder Litigation firms. I suggest that anyone considering signing up with any of the firms marketing the mass litigation suits to read this over carefully:
http://www.dre.ca.gov/pdf_docs/ca/ConsumeAlert_WarningreMassLitigation.pdf
Wayne Bell, Chief Counsel for the California DRE sums it up nicely with these words:
Please be careful, do your own diligence to protect yourself, and be highly suspect if anyone asks you for money up front before doing any service on your behalf. Most importantly, DON’T LET FRAUDS TAKE YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY.
The story keeps getting better. Now Stein is claiming there has been an unauthorized press release.
Check out the Press Release:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2011/3/prweb8214976.htm
Now check out where he claims he didn't authorize it (protecting Kramer?):
http://www.dobielaw.org/Contact-Us.html
Whoever wrote the press release appears to know something about what is going on and appears to have been trying to do damage control.
The press release on Stein has already been removed, but it is still up on a blog:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11050228/1/mitchell-stein-esq-consumers-beware-of-bogus-claims-about-landmark-bank-of-america-lawsuit.html
On March 28, 2011, co-counsel in the Ronald vs. B of A case filed a motion with the court to remove Stein as co-lead counsel.
As soon as the documented is available, I will provide a link.
I continue to have clients ask me about this case. I try to reserve my opinion as much as possible so as to develop an informed one. I just wanted to say that I have found this blog post in general, and these comments in particular very helpful. Do the math, you seem to have your finger on the pulse of this. Thanks for sharing your insight and I especially look forward to seeing the motion regarding Mr. Stein.
Okay, here it is:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxAap8zRDEE_NDUxMzBhNjEtMjNhZC00YzJjLTgzMDMtOTc1Y2NmZmY4YmQz&hl=en
Your jaw will drop to the floor when you read it.
Note: The motion is not to remove Stein from the case but as co-lead counsel and to separate clients.
Stein has still done excellent work on the case, and there is no assertion by other counsel that Stein is not an outstanding attorney.
Why this is important is that it does force Stein to reply and it does force the court to address the situation.
I live in Southern California, I'm very interested in getting on board with this law suit because my loan documents follow the criteria specified by what I have read, I've been following this thread for several weeks now and have left several messages for Phillip Kramer directly through his office and haven't received any calls back!
What is one to do next?
Is this suit real or not and iof it is real who can I contact that is not going to Rip Me Off!
Jeffrey, please reread the thread, and see what happens in the Ronald vs. B of A case later this week. Please do not be tempted to deal with a non attorney in the interim.
You have done everything you can by contacting Kramer at the phone number listed on the CA Bar website, if his office cannot manage a call back, then the best thing to do is take a wait and see approach. You might also want to look for other attorneys while you are waiting for an attorney at Kramer's office to call you back.
If your interest is in the Ronald vs. Bank of America suit, Stein is on record with the court saying Kramer is not authorized. So, I guess it would stand to reason that you wouldn't contact Kramer's office for that case.
Latest twist on the Mass Joinder saga is this case that was filed in Orange County on April 1, 2011:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52583462/Crawford-vs-Kramer-1
The Plaintiff, John Crawford, filed a complaint against Gary DiGirolamo, Christopher Fox, Matthew Davis, and Philip Kramer for Breach of Contract, Breach of Oral Contract, Embezzlement, Negligence, and for Accounting.
The Plaintiff is suing for $300,000 in estimated damages.
What is interesting about the case is the Plaintiff claims to have entered into agreements with APC (Attorney Processing Center, LLC) and defendants to sell defendants products (loss mitigation and mass joinder). Be sure to check out the agreement and compensation schedules, and mention of affiliates.
Speaking of commissions and affiliates in regard to the mass joinders, check out this article on the Declaration of Vito Torchia Jr of Brookstone Law in connection with the motion to remove Stein as co-lead counsel on the Ronald vs. Bank of America case:
http://getoutofdebt.org/27200/vito-torchia-jr-of-brookstone-law-is-my-hero-today-for-laying-out-the-mass-joinder-history
Here is the entire document that also a variety of interesting declarations and exhibits.
http://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/4-5-2011-motion.pdf
File this under things that make you go "WTF!"
New twist to the saga. While Stein's Ronald vs B of A case is still listed the Kramer-Kaslow.com site, there is no longer has a warning page. Also, Mass Litigation Alliance is no longer linked as an approved of counsel firm. There is a new firm now linked called Consolidated Litigation Group, PC:
http://www.consolidatedlitigation.com/
And get this, the Consolidated Litigation Group shows the same address as Mass Litigation Alliance and has a link to MLA's Facebook page.
Now check out all the Mass Litigation Alliance affiliates that have switched over to Consolidated Litigation Group, PC:
http://masslitalliance.org
http://www.lenderlit.com
http://www.masslitigationpc.org
http://mass-litigation.com
http://masslitalliance.net
http://justmtgloans.com
http://www.legalfreeandclear.com
http://bank77.com/faqlog.php
http://joindercase.com
http://defendyourdeed.com
http://tomboldt.masslitalliance.org/
http://litigationintake.com
http://www.kandklitigation.com
Of course, the different websites have different intake office addresses and phone numbers. Isn't that special?
It is also interesting to note that the Consolidated Litigation Group website is registered to J. Robert Berrellez. Mr. Berrellez is (or was) in the modification business, and his website: www.247247inc.com shows that it is a website for Christopher J. Van Son, the new attorney listed on the Consolidated Litigation Group website.
File this under things that make you go hmmmm.....
It's like groundhog day only not funny. Kramer Stein -----> K2 Law ----> Mass Lit Alliance ----> Consolidated Litigation -----> ?? All within a few short months. It usually takes half a year for mod companies to intake enough clients to have to change their name and thats full speed no looking back.
We should have a naming contest to see if we can pick what the next change will be. It would appear that Matt Davis got fed up with it too which is why they had to go find someone else to obscure the real business that was going on. Any word on who the new guy or gal is gonna be? Who's behind Consolidated Lit? And is it still a boiler room call center using a legal sounding name? Is Kramer hiding in Mexico? His "intake" company should be.
Looks like Kramer took you up on the name challenge. Some of the affiliate websites changed their name to Mass Litigation Advisors. The Mass Litigation Alliance Facebook page has also been changed to Mass Litigation Advisors. The websites are the same, and only the attorney page, name, and LOGO changed. The attorney page only shows Kramer.
Consolidated Litigation Group is no longer listed as an of counsel firm on the Kramer-Kaslow.com main page, but CLG shows Christopher J. Van Son as an attorney in addition to Kramer. The number of CLG websites has grown substantially over night.
Check out this investigative report by John Mattes:
http://youtu.be/R4AyzE3Gs0E
Hi I would just like to clarify a few things before all of the viewers jump to conclusions. I am a website expert and internet marketing guru so I'm very experienced with their internet marketing methods. I'm pretty sure Christopher Van Son has a lot of tasks on his plate. It seems he's the single attorney of his own firm with all those leads pointing to him, you can probably affirm that he's a busy guy and people trust him to get a reduction on their loans. Since he is focused on litigation, he has to get affiliates to help with the marketing of his service, so that's what these links are doing. Each one is helping him get leads so that he knows which websites the leads come from. So from my understanding, his internet methods are quite advanced and should be commended, not criticized by those who don't fully understand the process. Perhaps the different marketing firms charge different fees. One just has to shop around for the best deal .
Hi I would just like to clarify a few things before all of the viewers jump to conclusions. I am a website expert and internet marketing guru so I'm very experienced with their internet marketing methods. I'm pretty sure Christopher Van Son has a lot of tasks on his plate. It seems he's the single attorney of his own firm with all those leads pointing to him, you can probably affirm that he's a busy guy and people trust him to get a reduction on their loans. Since he is focused on litigation, he has to get affiliates to help with the marketing of his service, so that's what these links are doing. Each one is helping him get leads so that he knows which websites the leads come from. So from my understanding, his internet methods are quite advanced and should be commended, not criticized by those who don't fully understand the process. Perhaps the different marketing firms charge different fees. One just has to shop around for the best deal like anything else.
Kramer & Kaslow's files were seized by the CA Bar. Kramer & Kaslow's number, 818-224-3900, now features a CA Bar recording.
Hi I am an attorney practicing law in Bloomfield, New Jersey and have over twenty years of experience representing clients with diverse needs.
Attorney Phil Kramer of Kramer & Kaslow Takes Action, Shuts Down Unauthorized Sales
Sessions and kimball